JOHN  NEWTON,  GEORGE  S.  GREENE  and  Q.  A.  GILLUORE 

ON  THB 

CHARGES  PREFERRED  AGAINST 

THB 

CHIEF  ENGINEER 

OF  THE 

AQUEDUCT  COMMISSION. 


THE  AMERICAN  GRAPHIC  CO.(N.Y. 


0^-A  USfcl 


1 


lit./ 

Nuiik. 

REPORT 

OF 


JOHN  NEITON,  GEORGE  S.  GREENE  and  Q.  A.  GILLMORE 


ON  THE 


CHARGES  PREFERRED  AGAINST 

THE 

CHIEF  ENGINEER 

OF  THE 


AQUEDUCT  COMMISSION. 


Aqueduct  Commissioners’  Office, 
Stewart  Building, 

280  Broadway,  New  York. 

At  the  Stated  Meeting  of  the  Aqueduct  Commissioners,  held  at  their  office, 
209  Stewart  BuildiDg,  on  Wednesday,  August  4, 1886,  at  two  o’clock  p,  m.,  Com- 
missioner Ridgway  offered  the  following  preamble  and  resolution : 

“ Whereas , The  Committee  of  Examining  Engineers,  consisting  of  Generals 
Greene,  Newton  and  Gillmore,  that  investigated  the  charges  made  against  the 
Chief  Engineer  by  Mr.  Craven,  the  late  Construction  Engineer,  reported  to  this 
Commission,  under  date  of  July  14,  exonerating  the  Chief  Engineer  ; and 

“ Whereas,  It  is  desirable  that  such  report  should  reach  the  public  ; there- 
fore 

“ Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  directed  to  cause  twenty-five  hundred 
copies  of  the  said  report,  exclusive  of  the  testimony,  to  be  printed  for  distribu- 
tion at  an  expense  not  to  exceed  three  hundred  dollars.” 

On  motion  of  Commissioner  Ridgway  the  preamble  and  resolution  were 
unanimously  adopted.  John  C.  Sheehan,  Secretary. 


2 


To  the  Aqueduct  commissioners  of  the  City  of  New  York  : 

Gentlemen— In  compliance  with  your  resolutions  of  the  17th  of  March, 
in  these  words,  namely  : 

“ Resolved , That  Messrs  John  Newton,  George  S.  Greene  and  Q.  A.  Gillmore, 
Civil  Engineers,  are  hereby  appointed  to  investigate  the  charges  made  against 
the  efficiency  of  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Commission,  and  of  imperfect  wort 
in  the  construction  of  the  New  Aqueduct  ; with  full  power  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers,  and  to  make  their  examination  thorough  and  complete  so  far  as  the 
same  relates  to  the  engineering  and  construction  of  the  work  in  question  ; and 
report  to  the  Aqueduct  Commissioners.” 

“ Resolved . That  the  Board  of  Engineers  be  requested  when  the  charges  have 
been  submitted  to  hear  all  necessary  statements  and  make  all  necessary  exam- 
inations of  the  work  in  person,  at  the  earliest  time  practicable,  leaving  to 
them  all  the  details  of  the  manner  of  conducting  the  said  examination.” 

The  undersigned  have,  we  believe,  made  a thorough  examination  of  the 
subjects  of  all  the  charges  presented  ; of  the  work  under  construction,  and  of 
the  engineering  management ; and  we  herewith  submit,  first,  our  conclusions  on 
each  of  the  charges  presented  to  us,  viz.  : 

Charges  numbered  2,  3,  4, 5 and  6,  reported  on  pages  1 to  6 inclusive  of 
our  minutes,  and  additional  charges  1 to  6,  of  which  No.  2 is  a repetition  of  the 
3d  original  charge. 

Secondly.  In  our  inspection,  all  of  the  tunnels  on  the  north  side  of  the 
Harlem  River  were  visited,  except  at  Shaft  23,  where  they  were  blasting  at  the 
time,  in  all  the  work  the  ventilation  varies  with  the  state  of  the  atmosphere, 
but  there  are  likewise  considerable  variations  arising  from  the  different  systems 
adopted,  and  from  the  more  or  less  perfection  with  which  these  are  carried  out. 

The  inferior  method  of  ventilation  by  a wooden  box  into  which  the 
exhaust  steam  from  the  engine  is  conducted  but  poorly  accomplishes  the 
object,  while  the  more  perfect  system  of  positive  power,  by  blowers  m con- 
nection with  smooth  iron  pipes,  often  fails  from  want  of  capacity  or  bad 
joints,  insufficient  power  or  other  imperfections  in  the  machinery  and  appliances. 
As  the  length  of  the  tunnels  increase,  all  imperfections  snd  especially  want 
of  power  enhance  the  difficulty  of  efficient  ventilation ; generally  the  means 
for  ventilation  appear  to  be  insufficient,  and  this  will  be  particularly  felt 
when  the  invert  and  side  walls  of  the  lining  have  to  be  laid. 

In  the  headings  when  the  drills  are  at  work  the  air  is  better  than  in  the 
rest  of  the  tunnel  extending  to  the  shaft.  In  this  space  the  aqueduct  engi- 
neers have  often  to  work  where  it  is  difficult  to  remain  continuously  with- 
out suffering  a temporary  indisposition  from  the  bad  air. 

The  use  of  torches  and  lamps  with  kerosene  and  benzine  would  oppose 
any  system  of  ventilation  in  consequence  of  the  large  amount  of  smoke 
and  gases  thrown  out.  Electric  lights  with  candles  would  constitute  a much 
better  system. 

Masonry  was  examined  (only  on  its  external  surface)  in  tunnels  near 
shafts  and  openings  Nos.  9, 12  a,  12  B,  14, 17, 18  and  19.  The  rubble  masonry 
was  of  good  stone  as  far  as  seen  externally  and  of  good  mortar,  which  was  well 
set ; the  workmanship  was  rough,  but  in  every  respect  suitable  for  the 
purpose  of  a back  supporting  wall.  An  exception  to  the  general  quality 
was  a small  piece  of  rubble  and  brick  ordered  by  the  Chief  Engineer  to  be 
taken  down.  The  brick  masonry  was  made  of  good  hard  brick  and  strong 
mortar  ; there  was  one  exception  in  tunnel  south  of  portal  No.  9.  There  was 
some  end  joints  of  the  brickwork  not  filled  with  mortar ; this  would  not  be  dis- 
covered until  the  centres  were  withdrawn,  and  could  have  been  known  only  to 
the  inspector  on  the  work ; the  extent  of  this  detect  can  ODly  be  determined  by 
taking  down  part  of  the  work.  Bricks  were  delivered  on  the  work,  many  of 
Which  were  not  suitable  for  the  masonry  required,  but  many  were  well  burn® 


3 


and  of  good  form.  The  culling  should  be  done  when  such  materials  are  de- 
livered on  the  work  and  the  imperfect  brick  immediately  removed,  as  required 
by  the  specifications.  Our  inspection  revealed  the  fact  of  the  general  good  and 
sufficient  quality  of  the  masonry,  but  owing  to  the  deficiency  of  light  some 
defective  parts,  small  in  extent,  may  have  escaped  our  notice.  A fully  satisfac- 
tory inspection  of  masonry  can  be  made  only  during  the  process  of  con- 
struction. 

On  some  of  the  brickwork  laid  in  wet  positions  there  is  an  efflorescence  of 
salts  on  the  face  of  the  wall.  This  is  common  in  hydraulic  masonry  (it  is 
usually  from  magnesia  or  potash  in  the  cement),  and  is  not  injurious  to  the 
work.  The  extent  of  the  timbering  used  shows  the  treacherous  character  of 
the  rock  in  the  roofs  of  the  tunnels  and  the  necessity  for  carefully  supporting 
them. 

The  finding  on  the  several  charges  marked  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  H,  I,  J,  K 
and  L are  hereunto  annexed. 

Briefs  of  testimony  and  charges  2,  3 and  4 are  herewith  presented,  as  are 
also  the  minutes  of  our  proceeedings. 

The  Examining  Engineers  inquired  into  the  methods  of  the  Chief  Engi- 
neer’s office  for  the  conduct  of  the  work  under  his  supervision.  A well- 
arranged  system  exists  for  furnishing  drawings  and  instructions  to  the  Di- 
vision Engineers  and  for  receiving  from  them  returns  and  other  incidents  con- 
cerning the  work.  The  condition  of  the  ventilation,  the  quantities  of  water 
raised  from  the  tunnels  and  other  occurrences  of  interest  are  recorded. 

Detailed  estimates  of  work  of  every  kind  are  furnished  monthly. 

The  system  works  well  and  by  it  the  Chief  Engineer  is  enabled  to  have 
before  him  at  all  times  a history  of  the  progress  and  condition  of  the  work. 

The  excavation  of  the  tunnel  and  the  masonry  which  has  been  constructed 
indicate  the  general  efficiency  and  competency  of  the  engineering  force.  The 
management  under  this  system  appears  to  be  efficiently  carried  on. 

Our  thanks  are  due  to  your  Secretary,  Mr.  James  W.  MeCulloh,  for  the 
prompt  and  efficient  aid  which  he  rendered  to  our  labors  in  many  ways,  besides 
furnishing  official  records  and  assisting  in  making  up  our  minutes  and  re- 
ports. 

His  knowledge  of  the  records  and  of  the  management  of  the  business  of 
the  Department  gave  to  his  co-operation  a particular  value.  Respectfully  sub- 
mitted, (Signed)  GEORGE  S.  GREENE. 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON. 

(Signed)  Q.  A.  GILLMORE. 

CHARGE  SECOND  (PAGE  ONE  OF  THE  MINUTES). 

That  masonry  condemned  by  the  Engineer  of  Construction,  two  Assistant 
Engineers  and  three  Inspectors  was  accepted  by  the  Chief  Engineer. 

SPECIFICATION. 

The  masonry  referred  to  is  the  rubble  stone  masonry  at  the  Saw  Mill  River 
Crossing  of  the  New  Aqueduct,  between  Shafts  12  A and  12  B on  Section  6. 

For  that  class  of  masonry  the  requirements  of  the  Contract  Specifications 
^clause  44,  page  20  of  Contract)  are  as  follows  : 

“44.  Rubble  stone  masonry  shall  be  made  of  sound,  clean  stone  of  suita- 
ble size,  quality  and  shape  for  the  work  in  hand,  and  presenting  good  beds 
for  materials  of  that  class.  Care  must  be  taken  to  have  the  beds  and  joints 
full  of  mortar,  and  no  grouting  or  filling  of  joi  its  after  the  stones  are  in 
place  will  be  allowed.  The  work  must  be  thoroughly  bonded. 

“ Rubble  stone  masonry  is  to  be  used  for  the  side  walls  and  'foundations 
of  the  Aqueduct  when  it  is  built  in  open  trenches,  and  in  any  part  of  the  tun- 
nel or  other  part  of  the  work  where  it  may  be  ordered. 


4 


“ in  the  tunnel,  especially,  the  size  and  shape  of  the  stone  used  must  be 
adapted  to  the  spaces  to  be  filled,  in  order  to  secure  absolutely  compact  work. 

“ Stone  from  the  tunnel  or  other  excavation  may  be  used  when  suitable.’’ 

The  testimony  in  reference  to  this  charge  is  very  voluminous. 

The  witnesses  in  support  of  the  charge  were  Mr.  H S,  Craven,  the  late  Con- 
struction Engineer,  Assistant  Engineers  A.  A.  Eorne  and  Robert  H Moore  and 
Inspectors  George  R.  Buroank,  J.  H.  Maloney  and  Joan  Kelly.  Mr  Horne, 
who  is  a conspicuous  witness  on  that  side,  rests  his  jaigmeac  entirely  upon  the 
appearance  ot  the  outside  of  the  wall  on  the  face  and  ends  Cor  no  part  was 
taken  down  to  verify  his  opinion),  and  assumes  the  aosence  of  headers  and  a 
deficiency  of  spawis  in  the  joints  from  this  superficial  and  inadequate  exami- 
nation. In  his  testimony  before  the  Examining  Engineers  Mr.  Horne  acknowl- 
edges not  to  have  read  the  specifications  in  the  coatract  descrioing  the  quality 
of  the  rubble  masonry  to  be  constructed,  although  he  had  made  a report  in  writ- 
ing to  Mr.  Craven  condemning  the  wall,  and  that  he  did  not  test  the  mortar  in 
the  joints,  though  he  thougnt  it  was  good.  Ocher  defects  alleged  to  exist  in 
this  masonry  were  described  oy  him  as  leakage  through  the  wall  in  a tew  places, 
the  presence  of  one  rotten  stone,  and  he  commented  upon  the  want  of  strength 
and  inaccuracy  of  level  and  shape  of  the  skewback  on  top  of  the  wall. 

Mr.  Moore’s  report  to  the  Construction  Engineer,  he  admits  in  his  testi- 
mony, was  made  in  blind  reliance  upon  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Horne. 

The  Inspectors  Burbank,  Maloney  and  Kelly,  in  their  testimony,  contradict 
that  of  Mr.  Horne  in  essential  matters,  and  upon  their  testimony  alone,  without 
counter  evidence,  the  fitness  ol  the  wall  to  the  purposes  required  and  the  con- 
formity of  its  construction  to  the  specifications  of  the  contract  mignt  be  made 
to  rest. 

J.  M.  Wolbrecht,  Engineer  in  charge  of  Third  Division  ; H.  H.  Bowley, 
Assistant  Engineer  ; Inspector  Daly,  Chief  Engineer  Church,  Deputy  Chief 
Engineer  Fteley  and  Consulting  Engineer  J.  P.  Davis,  unite  in  commendation 
of  the  strength  and  good  character  of  the  masonry  and  its  conformity  to  the 
contract. 

The  attempt  to  prove  the  bad  and  insufficient  character  of  the  masonry 
of  this  wall  so  entirely  failed,  without  the  necessity  to  urge  anything  in  rebuttal, 
that  the  Examining  Engineers  find  no  difficulty  in  dismissing  the  implication  in 
the  charge,  that  Chief  Engineer  Church  neglected  his  duty  by  accepting  the 
wall.  The  wail,  on  the  contrary,  is  shown  by  the  testimony  to  have  been  built 
of  strong  and  suitable  materials,  both  as  respects  stone  and  mortar,  and  also  to 
be  in  conformity  to  the  specifications  of  the  contract  in  materials  and  workman- 
ship, and  that  it  was  fully  adapted  to  the  requirements  of  the  case. 

Those  who  reported  unfavorably  as  to  the  character  of  the  wall  made  but 
few,  the  most  of  them  but  one,  inspection  of  the  wall ; while  of  those  who  attest 
the  good  quality  of  the  masonry,  the  most  made  frequent,  some  daily,  inspec- 
tions of  the  work. 

It  is  a thing  to  be  noted  that  the  Construction  Engineer  never  commuai- 
cated  to  his  Chief,  Mr.  Church,  the  unfavorable  reports  of  the  twa. Assistant 
Engineers  and  of  the  three  Inspectors,  for  his  consideration  and  action,  and 
the  Chief  was  entirely  uninformed  on  that  pointjuntil  the  opening  of  this  inquiry. 
The  Construction  Eagineer  in  his  testimony  gives  the  insufficient  reason  for  call- 
ing upon  certain  Assistant  Engineers  and  Inspectors  to  inspect  and  report  upon 
the  wall,  that  he  did  it  for  his  own  protection,  which  is  difficult  to  reconcile 
with  the  fact  that  the  Construction  Engineer  having  already  announced  his  un. 
favorable  opinion  of  the  wall  ceased  to  be  responsible  and  needed  no  machinery 
to  protect  himself. 

In  Inspector  Kelly’s  testimony  is  also  the  important  statement  that,  at  Mr.  H. 
8.  Craven’s  instance,  after  handing  in  his  report,  he  changed  it  by  insertion  and 


5 


addition  of  the  words  “ improper  bedding  of  stone.”  This  action  is  the  more 
significant,  as  the  contract  specially  requires  stone  “ presenting  good  beds  for 
materials  of  that  class,”  and  the  change  in  words  would,  therefore,  be  useful 
to  prove  a non-conformity  to  the  contract. 

Annexed  is  a brief  of  the  testimony  on  this  second  charge,  extracted  from 
the  testimony  in  full,  which  is  presented  in  the  minutes  of  our  proceedings. 

(Signed)  GEORGE  S.  GREENE, 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON, 

(Signed)  Q.  A.  GILLMORE. 

CHARGE  THE  THIRD— (PAGE  ONE  OF  THE  MINUTES.) 

“ That  Contractors  O’Brien  & Clajk  have  not  withdrawn  timbering  from 
the  roof  of  the  tunnel,  or  filled  in  the  space  with  stone,  as  required  by  the 
specifications  ; but  have  filled  in  the  space  with  logs  and  timber,  thereby  en- 
dangering the  masonry  of  the  Aqueduct.” 

SPECIFICATION. 

“ fhe  work  to  which  this  charge  refers  is  at  or  near  Shaft  12  B,  on  Section  6, 
of  the  New  Aqueduct.” 

The  requirements  of  the  contract  (Section  6,  clause  20,  page  13),  are  the 
following  ; 

“ 20.  The  spaces  bet  ween  the  top  of  the  arch  and  the  rock  or  other  material 
“ of  the  excavation,  or  any  other  space  which  mav  be  designated  by  the  engi- 
“ neer,  are  to  be  filled,  at  the  expense  of  the  contractor,  with  material  exca- 
vated from  the  tunnel,  of  approved  size  and  quality,  and  tree  from  all  perish- 
“able  matter.  The  hliiog  to  be  carefully  and  thoroughly  compacted,  so  as  to 
“ bring  an  uniform  pressure  on  the  masonry 

“ The  extrados  of  all  portions  of  the  arch,  when  in  contact  with  the  filling, 
“ is  to  be  covered,  at  the  expense  of  the  contractor,  with  a coating  of  cement 
“ mortar,  not  less  than  one-half  inch  thick.” 

And  Clause  27,  page  15  : 

“27.  All  timber  work  is  to  be  removed  from  the  excavation,  but  if,  in  the 
**  opinion  of  the  engineer,  any  timber  work  be  so  located  in  the  tunnel  or  shaft 
“or  trenches  that  its  removal  would  endanger  the  safety  of  the  masonry,  it 
“ shall  be  left  in,  and  ali  cavities  about  it  shall  be  filled  with  masonry  or  with 
“ such  other  material,  ax  he  may  order ; but  no  payment  is  to  be  made  to  the  con- 
tractor for  such  timber.” 

The  charge  preferred  by  Mr.  K.  S.  Craven,  late  Construction  Engineer,  is 
briefly— not  attempting  to  withdraw  timbering  or  lagging  ; the  space  between 
lagging  and  rock  roof  of  tunnel  being  filled  with  wood.  It  does  not  appear 
that  Mr.  Craven  reported  this  alleged  irregularity  to  the  Chief  Engineer  prior 
to  February  1,  1886.  Nor,  as  he  must  have  been  aware  of  it  if  he  performed  the 
special  duty  of  his  office,  that  of  outdoor  inspector  of  the  work,  does  it  appear 
that  in  the  progress  of  the  wort  at  or  near  Shaft  12  B he  gave  any  orders  to  the 
Engineers  and  others  in  superintendence  to  remove  the  timbeiing  and  wood 
packing  he  complains  of.  It  is  difficult  to  reconcile  this  omission  with  the 
opinion  he  now  expresses  relative  to  the  injurious  consequences  of  leaving 
in  the  timber  and  wood. 

Wolbrecht,  Bowley  and  McCarthy  testify  that  the  timbering  and  wood  was 
taken  out  as  much  as  it  was  safe  to  do  ; that  such  were  their  orders,  and  Wol- 
brecht also  states  that  the  Chief  Engineer  so  instructed  him.  These  witnesses 
also  testify  that  Mr.  Craven  never  instructed  them  to  remove  the  timbering 
and  wood. 

The  witnesses,  Horne,  Chapin  and  Renshaw,  who  were  called  up  by  Mr. 
Craven,  acknowledged  their  lack  of  experience  in  the  art  of  tunnelling. 

The  Examining  Engineers  hold  that  the  timbering  was  not  withdrawn  nor 


G 


the  lagging  in  this  dangerous  place,  the  Chief  Engineer  having  decided  in  con- 
formity with  clause  27,  before  quoted,  that  they  should  remain.  To  have  removed 
these  supports,  whicn  held  up  the  rock  •’oof,  would  have  brought  the  weight  of 
the  loose  rock  upon  the  fresh  masonry  to  its  probable  injury.  The  question, 
after  all,  was  not  of  the  possibility  of  removing  the  timbering  but  of  the  propriety 
of  so  doing— and  it  would  have  been  very  reprehensible  under  the  circum- 
stances as  found  to  exist  to  have  taken  away  the  timbering.  It  is  not  probable 
that  the  timber  will  decay  owing  to  its  exposure  to  constant  wetness— but  should 
decay  take  place,  the  masonry,  before  that  period,  will  have  acquired  sufficient 
strength  to  support  any  weight  which  will  come  upon  it. 

The  timber  on  the  sides  of  the  tunnels  below  the  water  surface  in  the  Aque- 
duct will  always  be  wet  and  will  not  deca^. 

The  Examining  Engineers,  therefore,  acquit  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Com- 
mission of  any  fault  which  is  alleged  in  this  charge  and  specification. 

A brief  of  the  testimony  is  herewith  presented. 

(Signed)  GEORGE  8.  GREENE, 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON, 

(Signed)  Q.  A.  GILL  MORE, 

CHARGE  FOURTH. 

That  on  the  Fifth  Division  of  the  New  Aqueduct  (shafts  17  and  18), 
timber  once  paid  for  under  the  charge  for  “ excavation,”  is,  by  order  of  the 
Chief  Engineer,  and  in  violation  of  the  specifications,  again  being  measured 
and  paid  for  as  “ Rubble  Stone  Masonry.” 

SPECIFICATION. 

The  timbering  referred  to  is  upon  Sections  8 and  9 of  the  New  Aqueduct 
and  between  shafts  17  and  18. 

The  requirements  of  the  contract  boaring  upon  the  matter  of  this  charge 
are  : 

First.— Clause  21,  pages  13  and  14  : 

“ The  price  per  cubic  yard,  stipulated  herein  for  tunnel  excavation  is  to 
cover  all  expense  due  to  the  presence  of  quicksand  or  other  soft  material,  rot- 
ten rock,  boulders,  &c. ; the  cost  of  pumping  and  bailing  ; of  all  timbering  and 
removal  of  the  same  ; of  removing  all  excavated  materials ; of  all  ventilation 
and  all  other  work  incident  to  the  excavation  of  the  tunnel.  Any  expense  that 
may  arise  from  loose  and  shaky  rock,  or  from  falls  or  cave-ins,  or  from  unex- 
pected obstacles,  shall  be  borne  by  the  contractor.” 

Second.— Clause  27,  page  15  : 

All  timber  work  is  to  be  removed  from  the  excavation  ; but  If,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Engineer,  any  timber  work  be  so  located  in  the  tunnel  or  shafts 
or  trenches,  that  its  removal  would  endanger  the  safety  of  the  masonry,  it  shall 
be  left  in,  and  all  cavities  about  it  shall  be  filled  with  masonry  or  with  such 
other  material  as  he  may  order,  but  no  payment  is  to  be  made  to  the  contrac- 
tor for  such  timber.” 

The  formation  of  a correct  judgment  on  this  charge  is  a simple  matter. 
The  phrase  “ timber  once  paid  for  under  the  charge  for  excavation  ” is  a mere 
quibble.  The  amount  paid  for  is  the  volume  of  the  tunnel  or  other  excavation, 
calculated  according  to  the  several  clauses  of  the  contract  provided  for  that 
purpose.  And  no  timber  is  mentioned  or  paid  for  in  that  settlement.  The 
clause  of  the  contract  above  quoted  provides  that  the  timber  shall  be  removed. 
In  the  cases  where  the  timbering  is  removed,  would  it  be  claimed  that  the  sticks 
belong  to  the  public  or  to  the  contractor,  and  would  the  contractor  be  de- 
barred a future  use  of  the  same  sticks  in  other  parts  of  the  works  ? A little 
consideration  given  to  these  points  makes  it  even  more  clear  that  the  timber  is 
not  paid  for  as  excavation. 


7 


The  contract  provides  that  under  certain  circumstances  the  timber  work 
shall  be  left  in,  and  all  cavities  about  it  shall  be  filled  with  masonry,  or  with 
such  other  material  as  he  (i.  e , the  Chief  Engineer)  may  order,”  and  the  sole 
question  to  be  adjudged  is  : When  the  timber  is  thus  enveloped  in  masonry 
what  measurement  of  that  masonry  is  just,  proper  and  usual  ? In  our  judg- 
ment, the  just  as  well  as  usual  rule  is  to  include  the  space  occupied  by  the 
timbering  in  the  estimate  for  masonry,  and  the  spaces  thus  included  and 
counted  as  masonry  do  not  compensate  the  contractor  tor  the  increased  expense 
of  working  around  these  timbers,  which  thus  left  in  position  and  under  the 
conditions  fulfil  the  duty  of  masonry. 

We  think  the  Chief  Engineer  under  clause  B of  the  contract  had  full  power 
to  decide  cases  like  this  ; that  bis  decision  was  just  towards  all  parties,  con- 
formable to  custom  and  entirely  correct. 

(Signed)  GEORGE  S.  GREENE, 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON, 

(Signed)  Q.  A GILL  MORE. 

CHARGE  FIFTH. 

That  attempts  have  been  made  to  prevent  his  honest  supervision  of  the 
work.” 

FIRST  SPECIFICATION. 

“ By  intimations,  from  outside  parties,  of  his  removal.” 

No  testimony,  except  from  Mr.  Church,  has  been  offered  in  relation  to  this 
specification;  and  Mr.  Church,  in  his  examination,  states  : “ I am  absolutely 
ignorant  of  any  intimation  of  outside  parties  of  Mr.Craven’e  removal,  as  alleged. 
If  any  such  intimation  was  made  it  was  without  my  knowledge  or  procurement.” 

SECOND  SPECIFICATION. 

“ Bv  an  application  of  the  Chief  Engineer  to  the  Commissioners,  to  have 
the  office  or  Engineer  of  Construction  abolished — which  they  declined.” 

The  Chief  Engineer,  in  his  letter  to  the  Aqueduct  Commissioners,  dated 
July  29,  1885,  recommended  that  the  office  of  the  Engineer  of  Construction  be 
abolished,  which  he  was  authorized  to  do  by  Section  3,  Article  V.,  of  the  By- 
laws. In  this  recommendation  the  Consulting  Engineer  of  the  Commissioners, 
Mr.  Joseph  P.  Davis,  a gentleman  of  great  experience  in  the  management  of 
works  of  this  Kind,  concurred.  We  find  nothing  to  condemn  in  this  action  of 
the  Chief  and  Consulting  Engineers,  their  action  being  pre-eminently  a strict 
duty  if  they  thought  the  management  or  discipline  of  the  engineering  force 
would  be  improved  by  the  change. 

THIRD  SPECIFICATION. 

A letter  npon  this  subject  which  he  understood  was  subsequently  written 
by  the  Chief  Engineer  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Construction,  the 
date  of  which  is  unknown  to  Mr.  H.  8.  Craven. 

Mr.  Church,  Chief  Engineer,  testified  that  such  a letter  was  not  written. 

FOURTH  SPECIFICATION. 

“ By  the  Chief  Engineer  withholding  the  information  necessary  to  enable 
the  Engineer  of  Construction  to  perform  his  duties— this  in  direct  violation  of 
the  rules  adopted  by  the  Commissioners  for  the  government  of  the  Engineer- 
ing Corps.” 

Section  6,  Article  V.  of  the  By-laws  adopted  May  20,  1885,  in  relation  to  the 
Construction  Engineer,  states  : 

“ He  receives  from  the  Chief  or  Deputy  Chief  Engineer  from  time  to  time 
all  plans,  instructions  and  orders  that  are  to  be  carried  out  and  executed  in  the 
construction  work,  and  is  held  responsible  for  their  execution.” 

Mr.  Church,  the  Chief  Engineer,  denies  that  the  By-laws  of  May  20  were 
ever  officially  promulgated,  which  appears  to  be  corroborated  by  a resolution 


8 


offered  and  adopted  at  the  same  meeting,  in  these  words  : “ Resolved,  That  the 
Chief  Engineer  is  hereby  requested  to  frame  and  report  to  the  Aqueduct  Com- 
missioners for  their  consideration  and  adoption  suitable  and  necessary  rules 
and  regulations  for  the  government  of  the  Engineer  Corps  ; and  for  the  care  of 
the  properly  of  the  Commission.” 

The  scope  of  this  resolution  evidently  manifests  the  intention  of  the  Com- 
missioners to  revise  the  article  for  the  government  of  the  Engineer  Corps, 
passed  at  that  time  from  suggestions  and  recommendations  required  of  the 
Chief  Engineer—and  hence  as  an  inference— that  the  official  promulgation  of 
the  By-laws  before  such  report  should  have  been  received  from  the  Chief  Engi- 
neer would  have  been  premature. 

The  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  stated  meetiDg  of  the  Aqueduct 
Commissioners,  November  4,  By-laws  : Construction  Engineer.  * * * “All 
general  plans,  instructions  and  orders  that  are  to  be  executed  by  the  Division 
Engineers  iu  the  construction  work  shall  be  transmitted  by  the  Chief  Engineer 
in  duplicate,  one  to  the  Construction  Engineer  and  the  other  to  the  Division 
Engineer,  and  the  Construction  Engineer  shall  supervise  their  execution.” 

It  is  here  seen  that  the  By-laws  were  changed  after  receiving  the  report  of 
the  Chief  Engineer. 

The  difference  between  the  extracts  above  quoted  is  conspicuous  ; by  the 
first  “ All  plans,  instructions  and  orders  ” are  to  be  communicated  to  the 
Construction  Engineer  ; but  by  the  latter  only  “ All  general  plans,  instructions 
and  orders,”  thus  materially  limiting  the  number  of  communications  to  the 
Construction  Engineer  from  the  office  of  the  Chief  Engineer. 

Also  at  the  same  meeting  of  November  4,  1885,  Commissioner  Soencer 
moved  the  adoption  of  the  rules  and  regulations  proposed  by  the  Chief  Engi- 
neer for  the  government  of  the  Engineer  Corps,  and  amended  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Construction  to  read  as  follows,  viz.  : 

EXTRACT. 

12th.— “All  general  plans,  instructions  and  orders  by  the  Chief  Engineer 
are  to  be  carried  out  by  the  Construction  and  the  Division  Engineers,  who  will 
be  responsible  for  their  execution.  Duplicates  ot  instructions  and  orders  to 
Division  Engineers,  and  their  replies  and  communications,  shall  be  forwarded 
to  the  Construction  Engineer  by  the  Chief  Engineer,” 

13th.— “Duplicates  of  all  orders,  directions  and  communications  from  the 
Construction  Engineer  to  the  Division  Engineers,  and  of  their  replies  thereto, 
shall  be  promptly  sent  to  the  Chief  Engineer  by  the  Construction  Engineer. 
When  a difference  of  opinion  shall  arise  between  the  Construction  and  Division 
Engineer,  each  shall  present  his  views  to  the  Chief  Engineer,  who  will  give  his 
orders  in  regard  thereto,  and  the  same  shall  be  promptly  obeyed.” 

Mr.  Church,  on  page  631,  testifies  as  follows  in  relation  to  these  rules : 

“ When  I drew  up  those  rules  and  regulations  the  intention  of  that  clause 
was  to  have  all  duplications  made  in  my  office  or  in  the  Construction  Engineer’s 
office,  and  to  relieve  the  Division  Engineers  from  making  the  duplications ; and 
that  part  of  the  clause  was  intended  to  cover  any  duplications  that  were 
necessary  or  called  for  by  the  necessities  of  the  work , but  it  was  not  intended 
that  all  those  orders  and  answers  should  be  duplicated  and  sent  to  the  Con- 
struction Engineer,  only  such  as  were  required.  As  I framed  these  laws  myself, 
that  was  the  intention  of  that  clause.” 

It  is  oerfectly  evident,  apart  from  Mr.  Church’s  testimony,  that  the  last 
portion  of  the  12th  rule  should  be  interpreted  by  the  first  portion  and  made 
to  refer  to  “general  plans,  instructions  and  orders,”  and  not  to  all  plans, 
instructions  and  orders,  in  order  not  to  depart  from,  but  to  be  in  accord  with, 
the  By-laws  of'  the  Commissioners.  Besides,  it  would  have  been  inconsistent 


9 


with  Mr.  Church's  intention  and  acts,  which  were  opposed  to  the  delays  and 
embarrassments  caused  by  such  multiplication  of  clerical  work  and  useless 
correspondence. 

The  testimony  is  quite  lengthy  on  this  third  specification. 

Mr.  Craven  neglected  to  show  wherein  he  had  not  received  or  had  not  been 
able  to  obtain  all  the  information  necessary  for  the  proper  performance  of  the 
duties  of  the  Engineer  of  Construction— and  he  probably  did  not  understand 
the  extent  of  the  information  which  he  was  entitled  to  receive  from  the  office  of 
the  Chief  Engineer— which  it  is  quite  clear,  from  the  record,  he  did  receive 

After  maturely  weighing  the  testimony  the  Examining  Engineers  find  no 
fault  to  attach  to  the  conduct  of  the  Chief  Engineer  under  the  fifth  charge. 

(Signed)  GEORGE  S.  GREENE. 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON. 

(Signed)  Q.  A.  GILLMORE. 

SIXTH  CHARGE. 

That  by  reason  of  his,  Mr.  Craven’s,  discovery  and 'correction  of  the  erro 
neous  and  excessive  measurements  of  masonry  on  Division  3,  he  was  thereupon 
ordered  by  the  Chief  Engineer  to  cease  examining  and  approving  the  monthly 
estimates,  except  clerically. 

In  consequence  of  a certain  letter  fron  the  Engineer  of  Construction  re- 
flecting severely  upon  the  Engineer  of  the  Third  Division  in  reference  to  a mis- 
take in  estimate'!  of  masonry,  and  on  account  of  some  bearing,  though  not  im- 
portant, upon  the  matter  of  the  charge,  the  Examining  Engineers  considered  it 
advisable  to  institute  as  thorough  an  inquiry  as  possible  into  the  history  of  the 
interview  of  December  4, 1885,  between  the  Engineer  of  Construction,  Craven, 
and  the  Engineer  of  the  Third  Division,  Wolbrecht.  It  appears  that  a short 
time  previous,  Mr.  Royal  Chapin,  Assistant  Engineer  under  Mr.  Woibrecht, 
mentioned  to  Mr.  Fitch,  a rodmaD  on  duty  in  the  office  of  the  Engineer  of  Con- 
struction at  Tarrytown,  that  the  measurement  on  the  west  wall  of  the  tunnel 
south  of  12B  were  not  made  by  the  Engineers  but  by  an  Inspector,  and  asked 
him,  Fitch,  to  ventilate  it ; that  is,  to  report  it  to  the  superior  authority,  and 
Fitch  reported  it  to  the  Engineer  of  Construction.  This  officious  action  is  prob- 
ably what  gave  Mr.  Craven  the  idea  that  the  incorrect  estimates 
for  that  portion  of  the  work  were  the  result  of  inaccurate  meas- 
urements. This  was  a mistake,  as  it  has  been  conclusively  shown 
that  the  error  arose  from  incorrect  plotting  of  accurate  measurements. 
The  Engineer  oi  Construction  in  looking  over  the  estimates  for  the  month  of 
November  noticed  an  excess  in  the  rubble  masonry  in  the  section  to  which  the 
wall  belonged.  After  the  word  brought  to  him  by  Mr.  Fitch,  it  was  natural 
to  suppose  that  the  error  arose  from  incorrect  measurements— and  he  sent  Mr 
Renshaw  to  Mr.  Wolbrecht  to  obtain  all  the  data  necessary  to  check  the  item  of 
rubble  masonry  in  question  ; and  also  to  request  the  Engineer  or  the  Assistant 
who  had  plotted  the  cross-section  to  come  to  his  office.  From  Mr.  Wolorecht’s 
testimony  Mr.  Craven  charged  that  the  measurements  were  wrong,  asking  the 
former  whether  he  considered  it  right  to  allow  an  Inspector  to  make  measure- 
ments on  nis  work.  After  some  discussion,  following  Mr.  Wolbrecht’s  testi- 
mony, he  states:  “I  said  I have  gone  over  everything  in  the  estimate  ex- 
cepting the  plotting  of  these  sections  ; I haven’t  had  an  opportunity  to  examine 
them.  You  see  they  are  pencilled  me.ely  ; my  signature  is  not  on  them  ; you 
have  sent  for  them  before  they  are  ready,  and  there  may  be  an  error  in  the 
plotting  : that  is  the  only  thing  I have  not  checked.”  Upon  applying  the  scales 
to  the  sections  an  error  was  found  in  the  plotting  which  gave  a large  excess  to 
the  rubble  on  the  estimates. 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  estimates  of  the  contractors’  work  had  not  yet  ad- 
vanced beyond  the  initial  stage  or  reached  the  Chief  Engineer,  and  that  he  is 


10 


absolutely  not  concerned  in  the  difficulty  and  discussion  between  Mr.  Craven 
and  Mr.  Wolbrecht.  By  the  duties  devolved  upon  the  Chief  Engineer  he  was 
to  “supervise  all  construction  work,  monthly  measurements  and  estimates, 
certify  all  estimates  for  payments  on  contract  or  other  work,  * * * and  the 
error,  if  it  had  escaped  the  subordinate  officers,  had  still  to  undergo  the  super- 
vision of  the  Chief  Engineer’s  office.  For  the  further  precautions  taken  against 
over  payments  Clauses  T,  U and  V of  the  contract  should  be  consulted. 

We  have  seen  that  it  was  the  final  duty,  before  payment,  of  the  Chiet 
Engineer  to  examine  the  estimates,  and  by  an  inspection  ot  the  By-laws  adopted 
November  4.  1885,  no  duty  ol  examining  the  estimates  is  enjoined  upon  the 
Engineer  of  Construction;  but  “ his  whole  duty  shall  be  in  the  field,  that  by 
constant  personal  examination  he  can  know  at  all  times  and  be  able  to  keep  the 
Chief  Engineer  constantly  and  fully  informed  in  regard  to  the  condition  and 
progress  of  the  work.”  And  again  : “ Work  of  all  other  kinds  than  personal 
examination  and  supervision  and  reports  on  actual  construction  shall  devolve 
upon  others  than  the  Construction  Eugineer,  in  order  that  his  whole  time  and 
attention  may  be  devoted  to  the  discharge  of  his  field  duties.” 

The  Construction  Engineer  having  no  authority  under  the  by  laws  to  ex- 
amine the  estimates  of  contract  work,  but  the  same  being  vested  in  the  Chief 
Engineer,  the  latter  had  the  right,  and  indeed  was  bound  in  duty,  to  take  away 
from  the  Construction  Engineer  every  occupation  which  could  interpose  with 
the  outside  duties  presented  in  the  By-laws. 

We  find  that  the  Chief  Engineer,  in  confining  the  examination  of  estimates 
by  the  Construction  Engineer  to  clerical  work,  was  entirely  justified  by  the  By- 
laws and  by  the  circumstances  of  "he  case. 

(Signed)  GEORGE  S.  GREENE, 

(Signed;  JOHN  NEWTON, 

(Signed)  Q.  A.  GILL  MORE. 

FIRST  ADDITIONAL  CHARGE. 

“ Slopes  have  been  estimated  and  paid  for  in  direct  violation  of  the  specifi- 
cations.” 

This  refers  to  the  open  cut  in  earth  at  South  Yonkers.  The  width  at  bot- 
tom was  what  was  required  for  the  masonry  and  the  timbering  to  support  the 
earth  during  construction.  The  sides  were  vertical  to  the  height  of  the  cover- 
ing embankment  oyer  the  arch,  at  which  level  the  width  of  the  cut  was  increased 
and  the  sides  sloped  to  1.  This  additional  width  was  proper  for  ditchiog, 
and  the  slopes  were  necessary  and  were  a proper  arrangement  for  finishing  the 
sides  of  the  cut.  The  removal  of  the  extra  thickness  of  earth  above  the  arch 
was  intended  to  equalize  the  load  thereupon. 

The  engineer,  in  our  opinion,  has  full  authority  under  the  contract  to  estab- 
lish the  lines  of  the  permanent  surface  of  the  cut,  and  we  think  the  arrangement 
made  was  proper  and  necessary. 

The  surplus  earth  was  used  properly  for  embankment  at  another  point  of 
the  open  cut,  and  this  was  an  economical  arrangement  for  the  city,  by  which 
the  expense  of  borrowed  earth  was  saved. 

(Signed)  GEORGE  8.  GREENE, 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON, 

(Signed)  Q.  A.  GILLMORE. 

THIRD  ADDITIONAL  CHARGE. 

SUB-LETTING  THE  WORK  IN  VTOLATON  ©F  THE  CONTRACT. 

Nothing  was  elicited  from  witnesses  showing  that  there  were  any 
contracts  for  sub-letting  the  work : no  such  contracts  were  ever 
presented  or  known  to  the  Chief  Engineer  or  to  his  assistants  as  far 
as  we  could  ascertain.  No  sub-contractors  were  ever  acknowledged  as  such 


11 


on  the  work  by  the  Chief  Engineer.  No  persons  having  immediate  charge  of 
the  work  were  recognized  as  actiDg  in  any  other  capacity  than  that  of  superin- 
tendents of  the  workiDg  parties  for  the  contractors  who  had  contracted  to  do 
the  work.  Estimates  were  always  made  >o  such  con  ractors,  and  to  them 
ODly  ; we  did  Dot  examine  into  the  manner  in  which  the  superintendents  were 
paid,  whether  by  salaries  or  by  percentage,  or  by  compensation  for  work  done. 

We  do  not  think  the  contract  controls  this  matter  of  compensation  between 
the  contractors  and  their  employes. 

(See  testimony  in  the  minutes  of  our  proceedings,  pages  234,  272,  275,  277, 
280,  380,  383,  574. 

(Signed)  GEORGE  S GREENE, 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON, 

(Signed)  Q A.  GILLMORE. 

FOURTH  ADDITIONAL  CH*  RGE  (Page  191  of  the  Minutes). 

‘‘Giving  special  contracts  to  the  contractors  lor  ditching  and  diverting 
streams  through  dumping  grounds  ; though  the  specifications  provide  that  this 
work  shall  be  done  by  the  contractois  at  their  own  expense.'’ 

The  clause  of  the  contract  referred  to  is  Section  47,  page  24  of  the  general 
form  of  contracts,  as  follows  ; 

47.— “At  his  own  expense  and  under  the  direction  of  the  engineers,  the 
contractor  is  to  clear  the  Aqueduct  from  all  refuse  and  rubbish  and  to  do  about 
the  shafts  all  grading  that  may  be  ordered  ; to  do  all  ditching  and  diverting  ot 
streams,  and  to  leave  in  neat  condition  the  grounds  by  him.” 

The  work  here  referred  to  was  the  building  of  culvert  to  carry  natural 
streams  across  dumping  grounds,  so  that  the  dumping  would  not  be  inter- 
rupted. This  was  not  the  ditching  which  the  contractors  were  required  to  do  at 
their  expense.  The  object  was  to  enlarge  the  dumping  grounds  by  filling  over 
the  streams  where  the  culverts  were  made,  as  there  was  not  ground  at  the 
shafts  in  possession  of  the  Aqueduct  Commissioners  on  which  to  divert  the 
streams. 

The  work  having  been  done  under  contracts  made  by  the  Aqueduct  Com- 
missioners, it  is  not  the  subject  for  criticism  by  us,  excepting  in  so  far  as  it  was 
recommended  by  the  Chief  Engineer.  The  testimony  shows  that  the  work  was 
necessary  and  proper  and  outside  of  the  requirements  of  the  contract.  (See 
testimony,  pages  239,  378,  379,  595  of  the  minutes). 

(Signed)  GEORGE  S.  GREENE. 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON. 

(Signed;  Q A.  GILLMORE. 

FIFTH  ADDITIONAL  CHARGE.  (Page  191  of  the  Minutes). 

“ Ordering  additional  shafts  were  not  necessary,  and  should  not  have  been 
allowed,  as  they  involve  unnecessary  expense  to  the  city  ” 

The  contracts  authorize  additional  shafts  in  the  discretion  of  the  Aqueduct 
Commissioners  on  Sections  2 to  9 inclusive,  and  on  other  sections  within  the 
limit  of  cost  of  five  thousand  dollars  ; the  shafts  that  were  ordered  were  so 
ordered  to  facilitate  the  completion  of  the  work  where  unexpected  difficulties 
had  occurred.  We  believe  they  were  justly  ordered,  and  that  the  Chief  "Engi 
neer  only  fuldlled  his  duty  in  so  acting. 

(See  testimony  pages  243,  244  259,  262,283,  288,  291,  293,  294,  376,  377,  378, 
383,  388,  437,  577.) 

(Signed)  GEORGE  S.  GREENE, 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON, 

(Signed)  Q.  A.  GILLMORE. 


12 


SIXTH  ADDITIONAL  CHARGE 

‘k  Payment  of  tne  employes  of  the  contractors  in  stoie  orders  contrary  to 
and  in  direct  disobedience  jf  the  terms  of  the  contract.” 

The  contract  requires  that  the  contractor  “ mil  punctually  pay  the  work- 
men who  shall  be  employed  on  the  aforesaid  work  in  cash  current,  and  not  in 
what  is  denominated  store  pay.”  By  this  we  understand  that  the  men  shall  not 
be  required  to  take  their  pay  in  goods  or  merchandise  which  is  technically 
called  “ store  pay.”  No  evidence  was  obtained  that  such  was  done  by  the 
contractors.  We  do  not  think  that  selling  goods  on  credit  or  for  cash  by  the 
contractors,  or  by  any  persons  serving  under  them,  to  the  men  is  in  violation 
of  the  contracts.  No  complaints  have  been  made  and  the  Chief  Engineer  does 
not  know  of  any  man  being  required  to  take  their  wages  or  compensation  in 
“ store  pay.” 

(Signed)  GEORGE  S.  GREENE, 

(Signed)  JOHN  NEWTON, 

(Signed)  Q.  A.  GILLMORE. 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makars 

Syracuse,  ft  y 
W-m.21.  m ' 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBAN  A 
628.1  N4811R  C001 

Report  of  examining  engineer  John  Newton 


3 0112  088634537 


